Packing Returning Secretaries

We study online secretary problems with returns in combinatorial packing domains with $n$ candidates that arrive sequentially over time in random order. The goal is to accept a feasible packing of candidates of maximum total value. In the first variant, each candidate arrives exactly twice. All $2n$ arrivals occur in random order. We propose a simple 0.5-competitive algorithm that can be combined with arbitrary approximation algorithms for the packing domain, even when the total value of candidates is a subadditive function. For bipartite matching, we obtain an algorithm with competitive ratio at least $0.5721 - o(1)$ for growing $n$, and an algorithm with ratio at least $0.5459$ for all $n \ge 1$. We extend all algorithms and ratios to $k \ge 2$ arrivals per candidate. In the second variant, there is a pool of undecided candidates. In each round, a random candidate from the pool arrives. Upon arrival a candidate can be either decided (accept/reject) or postponed (returned into the pool). We mainly focus on minimizing the expected number of postponements when computing an optimal solution. An expected number of $\Theta(n \log n)$ is always sufficient. For matroids, we show that the expected number can be reduced to $O(r \log (n/r))$, where $r \le n/2$ is the minimum of the ranks of matroid and dual matroid. For bipartite matching, we show a bound of $O(r \log n)$, where $r$ is the size of the optimum matching. For general packing, we show a lower bound of $\Omega(n \log \log n)$, even when the size of the optimum is $r = \Theta(\log n)$.Comment: 23 pages, 5 figure

Implementing a Public Health Perspective in FDA Drug Regulation

There is, without question, a public health crisis in the United States arising from both illicit and prescription opioid misuse, addiction, and overdose. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is one regulator with an important role to play in minimizing the harms associated with prescription opioids, while also ensuring that prescription opioids are available for the evidence-based management of pain. One question, however, is to what extent the agency can consider in its decisions to approve opioids and keep existing ones on the market the provider and patient behaviors contributing to the epidemic. This is, in part, because FDA’s approval of drugs is often understood as narrowly focused on weighing the benefits and risks of the products as defined in the preapproval clinical trials that are used to set the drug’s official FDA-approved indication. Such a limited focus would exclude important information about the real-world use and public-health impact of prescription opioids and other drugs with externalities. This Article argues that, to better regulate drugs like opioids that have such externalities, one step FDA should take is to use a “public health” perspective in its approval (and withdrawal) decisions. The Article describes how the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act authorizes FDA to take this broad approach in its drug approval and withdrawal decisions and offers some principles for implementing this approach systematically. Posted with the permission of the Food and Drug Law Institute

Innovative research methods for studying treatments for rare diseases: methodological review

Objective: To examine methods for generating evidence on health outcomes in patients with rare diseases. Design: Methodological review of existing literature. Setting: PubMed, Embase, and Academic Search Premier searched for articles describing innovative approaches to randomized trial design and analysis methods and methods for conducting observational research in patients with rare diseases. Main outcome measures We assessed information related to the proposed methods, the specific rare disease being studied, and outcomes from the application of the methods. We summarize methods with respect to their advantages in studying health outcomes in rare diseases and provide examples of their application. Results: We identified 46 articles that proposed or described methods for studying patient health outcomes in rare diseases. Articles covered a wide range of rare diseases and most (72%) were published in 2008 or later. We identified 16 research strategies for studying rare disease. Innovative clinical trial methods minimize sample size requirements (n=4) and maximize the proportion of patients who receive active treatment (n=2), strategies crucial to studying small populations of patients with limited treatment choices. No studies describing unique methods for conducting observational studies in patients with rare diseases were identified. Conclusions: Though numerous studies apply unique clinical trial designs and considerations to assess patient health outcomes in rare diseases, less attention has been paid to innovative methods for studying rare diseases using observational data

Therapeutic Value of Drugs Granted Accelerated Approval or Conditional Marketing Authorization in the US an Europe From 2007 to 2021

IMPORTANCE: The number of drugs approved through the accelerated approval or conditional marketing authorization pathways has increased with unclear evidence of their therapeutic value. OBJECTIVES: To assess the therapeutic value of drug indications granted accelerated approval in the US or conditional marketing authorization in the European Union (EU) overall and for cancer indications. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study used the public databases of the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency to identify all drugs (initial and supplemental indications) granted accelerated approval in the US or conditional marketing authorization (initial indications only) in the EU between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2021. Therapeutic value ratings were obtained from national health authorities in Germany, France, and Canada. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Descriptive statistics were used to assess the proportion of accelerated approvals and conditional marketing authorizations overall and for cancer vs noncancer indications rated as having high added therapeutic value. RESULTS: The cohort included 146 drug indications (94 first indications, 52 supplemental indications) in the US and 58 (all first indications) in the EU. Most drugs were approved for cancer (122 [83.6%] in the US; 40 [69.0%] in the EU). Therapeutic value ratings were available for 90 drug indications (61.6%) in the US and 56 (96.6%) in the EU. Overall, 35 drug indications granted accelerated approval (38.9%) and 21 granted conditional marketing authorization (37.5%) had high added therapeutic value in the US and EU, respectively, at the time of approval. The proportions of indications rated as having high added therapeutic value were 36.0% (27 of 75) for cancer vs 53.3% (8 of 15) for noncancer indications in the US and 30.8% (12 of 39) for cancer vs 52.9% (9 of 17) for noncancer indications in the EU. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, among new drug indications approved through the accelerated approval or conditional marketing authorization pathways in the US and Europe from 2007 to 2021, 38.9% and 37.5%, respectively, demonstrated high therapeutic value. A substantially lower proportion of cancer indications than noncancer indications were rated as having high therapeutic value. Policy makers and regulators should increase enforcement of timely postapproval study completion for drugs qualifying for these pathways

Manufacturer revenue on inhalers after expiration of primary patents, 2000-2021

Inhalers remain the cornerstone therapy for patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Over the past several decades, brand-name manufacturers have continued to sell most inhalers at high prices without the threat of direct generic competition. They have arranged for long periods of market exclusivity by obtaining patents not just on the active ingredients (primary patents) but also on peripheral aspects of these products, such as the propellants and delivery devices (secondary patents), and by shifting active ingredients to different devices (device hops), thereby adding new secondary patents

Strategies and Practices in Off-Label Marketing of Pharmaceuticals: A Retrospective Analysis of Whistleblower Complaints

Aaron Kesselheim and colleagues analyzed unsealed whistleblower complaints against pharmaceutical companies filed in US federal fraud cases that contained allegations of off-label marketing, and develop a taxonomy of the various off-label practices

Coverage of new drugs in medicare Part D

Context: Medicare Part D is an outpatient prescription drug benefit for older Americans covering over 46 million beneficiaries. Except for mandatory coverage for essentially all drugs in six “protected classes”, plans have substantial flexibility in how they design their formularies: which drugs are covered, which drugs are subject to restrictions, and what factors determine formulary placement. Our objective in this paper was to document the extent to which Part D plans limit coverage of newly approved drugs. Methods: We examined the formulary design of 4,582 Part D plans from 2014 through 2018 and measured (1) the decision to cover newly approved drugs in non-protected classes, (2)nuse of utilization management tools in protected and non-protected classes, and (3) the association between plan design and drug-level characteristics such as 30-day cost, therapeutic benefit, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expedited regulatory pathway. Findings: The FDA approved 109 new drugs predominantly used in outpatient settings between 2013 and 2017. Of these, 75 fell outside of the six protected drug classes. One-fifth of drugs in non-protected classes (15 out of 75) were covered by more than half of plans during the first year after approval. Coverage was often conditional on utilization management strategies in both protected and non-protected classes: only 7 drugs (6 percent) were covered without prior authorization requirements in more than half of plans. Higher 30-day drug costs were associated with more widespread coverage in non-protected classes: drugs that cost less than $150 for a 30-day course were covered by fewer than 20 percent of plans while those that cost over$30,000 per 30 days were covered by more than 50 percent of plans. Plans were also more likely to implement utilization management tools on high-cost drugs in both protected and non-protected classes. A higher proportion of plans implemented utilization management strategies on covered drugs with first-in-class status than drugs that were not first-in-class. Other drug characteristics, including availability of added therapeutic benefit and inclusion in FDA expedited regulatory approval, were not consistently associated with plan coverage or formulary restrictions. Conclusions: Newly approved drugs are frequently subject to formulary exclusions and restrictions in Medicare Part D. Ensuring that formulary design in Part D is linked closely to the therapeutic value of newly approved drugs would improve patients’ welfare

Clinical Benefit and Expedited Approval of Cancer Drugs in the United States, European Union, Switzerland, Japan, Canada, and Australia

We studied all new cancer drugs approved in the six aforementioned jurisdictions from 2007 to 2020. We extracted all applicable expedited programs, total regulatory review times, and, for drugs first approved by the FDA, times to subsequent regulatory approval. Clinical benefit was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale value framework and ASCO-Cancer Research Committee's targets. Nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare total review times for high versus low clinical benefit drugs. One hundred and twenty eight drugs received initial approval in at least one of the six included jurisdictions. Most drugs approved by the FDA (91%) and Health Canada (59%) qualified for at least one expedited program within those jurisdictions, compared with 46% of EMA approvals and 18% of PMDA approvals. The FDA was the first regulator to approve 102 (80%) drugs. Delays in submission accounted for a median of 20.2% (EMA) to 83.8% (PMDA) of the time to subsequent approval. There was no association between high clinical benefit and shorter total review times. Most new cancer therapies were approved first by the FDA, and delays in submission of regulatory applications accounted for substantial delays in approving cancer drugs in other countries. Regulators should prioritize faster review for drugs with high clinical benefit

Use of generic medicines in Latvia : Awareness, opinions and experiences of the population

Funding Information: Funding was provided by EEA Financial Mechanism and Latvian state (award number 2012.EEZ/DAP/MIC/183). The project is financially supported by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Publisher Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s).Background: To stimulate use of generic medicines a combination of supply and demand side mechanisms are employed in the Latvian reimbursement system. It is reported that patients have high out-of-pocket pharmaceutical spending and that they overpay by not choosing generic medicines. Patient preferences may be an important obstacle in implementing generic policy. Objective of this study was to assess awareness, opinions and experience of the Latvian population regarding use of generic medicines. Methods: Survey of representative sample of the population of Latvia (n = 1005) aged 18-74 was conducted in March 2015. The survey was distributed in Latvian and Russian languages using Computer Assisted Web Interviews. Associations between experience with generic medicines, preference for medicines, and sociodemographic variables were tested with Pearson Chi-square statistics. Associations between the previous experience and information given by different sources versus choice between medicines were tested with Spearman's correlation test. Results: 72.3% of the population were informed about generic medicines. Men (66.9%) and respondents with primary or secondary education (58.3%; 69.3%) were less informed compared to total (72.3%). From those who recalled using generic medicines (n = 441), 94.4% evaluated their experience as positive or neutral. Despite this, only 21% of the population would opt for generic medicines. The strongest preference for brand-name medicines was in the age group > 55 (40.5%). Opinion of a physician was the most important factor when choosing between generic and brand-name medicines (88.7%). The more positive the information provided by general practitioners, physician specialists, pharmacists, family members, friends and internet is perceived, the more likely respondents are to choose generic medicines (p < 0.001). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that people in Latvia are aware of generic medicines but only a minority of the population would choose them when presented with a choice. It is therefore important that health care professionals provide objective and unbiased information about generic medicines to their patients. Interventions should aim to reach groups that are less informed and to improve providers' understanding and communication with patients about generics.publishersversionPeer reviewe